Effectiveness of Resource Groups for Improving Empowerment, Quality of Life, and Functioning of People With Severe Mental Illness: A Randomized Clinical Trial | Psychiatry and Behavioral Health | JAMA Psychiatry | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Sign In
Visual Abstract. RCT: Effectiveness of Resource Groups for Improving Empowerment, Quality of Life, and Functioning of People With Severe Mental Illness
RCT: Effectiveness of Resource Groups for Improving Empowerment, Quality of Life, and Functioning of People With Severe Mental Illness
Figure.  CONSORT Diagram of Participant Flow Through the Trial
CONSORT Diagram of Participant Flow Through the Trial

Patients were recruited from 20 flexible assertive community treatment (FACT) teams (range, 2-18 patients per FACT team) at 9 mental health care centers (range, 1-3 teams per center). RG indicates resource group.

Table 1.  Baseline Characteristics of the Study Group
Baseline Characteristics of the Study Group
Table 2.  Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures During the 3 Time Points by Condition
Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures During the 3 Time Points by Condition
Table 3.  Outcomes Linear Mixed Model Analyses of Primary and Secondary Outcomes
Outcomes Linear Mixed Model Analyses of Primary and Secondary Outcomes
Table 4.  Care Satisfaction
Care Satisfaction
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    Views 8,061
    Citations 0
    Original Investigation
    October 13, 2021

    Effectiveness of Resource Groups for Improving Empowerment, Quality of Life, and Functioning of People With Severe Mental Illness: A Randomized Clinical Trial

    Author Affiliations
    • 1Department of Reintegration and Community Care, Trimbos Institute, Utrecht, the Netherlands
    • 2Tranzo Scientific Center for Care and Welfare, Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Tilburg University, Tilburg, the Netherlands
    • 3Department of Psychiatry, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
    • 4Parnassia Psychiatric Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
    • 5Lentis Research, Lentis Psychiatric Institute, Groningen, the Netherlands
    • 6Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences, Department of Clinical Psychology and Experimental Psychopathology, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
    • 7Rob Giel Research Center, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
    • 8School of Mental Health and NeuroSciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands
    • 9Mondriaan Mental Health Trust, Maastricht/Heerlen, the Netherlands
    • 10Department of Community Mental Health, GGZ Noord-Holland-Noord, Heiloo, the Netherlands
    • 11Phrenos Centre of Expertise, Utrecht, the Netherlands
    JAMA Psychiatry. 2021;78(12):1309-1318. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2021.2880
    Key Points

    Question  Does the structure of a resource group have favorable effects on empowerment and recovery-related outcomes of people with severe mental illness?

    Findings  In this randomized clinical trial of 158 people with severe mental illness aged 18 to 65 years, self-reported empowerment improved significantly when working within a resource group method compared with well-established community-based care. Exploratory secondary outcomes such as quality of life and social functioning also indicated a broad range of benefits.

    Meaning  These findings suggest that resource groups establish widely endorsed principles of empowerment and engagement of significant others as cornerstones of community-based mental health care.


    Importance  Although the importance of recovery-oriented care for people with severe mental illness (SMI) is widely acknowledged, essential elements such as personalization and involvement of significant others are not adequately implemented in practice.

    Objective  To determine whether using resource groups (RGs) within flexible assertive community treatment (FACT) has favorable effects on empowerment and recovery-related outcomes in people with SMI.

    Design, Setting, and Participants  This assessor-blind, multisite randomized clinical trial was conducted from September 1, 2017, to September 30, 2020, with follow-up at 9 and 18 months. A total of 158 participants aged 18 to 65 years meeting the criteria for SMI were randomly allocated to FACT plus RG vs FACT as usual (1:1) in 20 FACT teams throughout the Netherlands. Data were analyzed from September 1, 2020, to January 31, 2021. The study was prespecified in the trial protocol and data from the intent-to-treat population were analyzed.

    Interventions  In the FACT plus RG condition, patients chose members from their informal and formal networks to form an RG that meets quarterly to discuss self-formulated recovery goals. The RG was integrated into the multidisciplinary support provided by the FACT team. In the FACT as-usual condition, empowerment (defined as overcoming powerlessness and gaining control of one’s life) and involvement of significant others was also part of the provided care, but without the structure of the RG.

    Main Outcomes and Measures  The primary outcome was self-reported empowerment, measured with the Netherlands Empowerment List.

    Results  A total of 158 participants with SMI (median age, 38 [median absolute deviation, 13] years; 93 men [58.9%]) were randomized to FACT plus RG (n = 80) or FACT as usual (n = 78) care. Intention-to-treat analyses showed that randomization to the RG condition was associated with a clinically significant increase in empowerment (Cohen d, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.21-0.86) and improved outcomes with small to medium effect sizes in terms of quality of life (Cohen d, 0.25; 95% CI, −0.07 to 0.56), personal recovery (Cohen d, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.06-0.69), quality of social contact (Cohen d, 0.24; 95% CI, −0.07 to 0.56), disability (Cohen d, 0.29; 95% CI, −0.03 to 0.60), general functioning (Cohen d, 0.30; 95% CI, −0.01 to 0.62), and social functioning (Cohen d, 0.28; 95% CI, −0.04 to 0.59). No differences between conditions were found regarding psychopathological symptoms, attachment, frequency of social contact, and employment. Compared with FACT as usual, participants who stayed with the assigned treatment in the RG condition were more satisfied with treatment at 9 (Cohen d = 0.45; t135 = −2.62; P = .009) and 18 (Cohen d = 0.41; t116 = −2.22; P = .02) months.

    Conclusions and Relevance  These findings show that working with RGs improves empowerment and other mental health outcomes in people with SMI who receive community-based mental health services. This method of network-oriented care empowers people with SMI within their own environment.

    Trial Registration  Netherlands Trial Register Identifier: NL6548


    Severe mental illnesses (SMIs) are psychiatric disorders that imperil lives over a long period, challenging and preoccupying mental health professionals.1 Although the potential benefits of involving significant others in mental health care are well documented,2 poor implementation rates are often reported.3-6 The resource group (RG) method, which builds on traditions of family intervention and integrated care, is a promising initiative to overcome this problem by providing a structure to ensure that family, friends, and caregivers maintain full involvement in routine services, thereby becoming collaborative partners in the recovery process. A patient’s RG comprises individuals from their informal (ie, friends, family) and formal (ie, social worker, psychiatrist, peer worker) networks and meets quarterly to discuss the patient’s recovery goals and jointly develop a plan for achieving them. By being part of an RG, significant others acquire skills to contribute to the goals, and attention is paid to their burden and needs as well as those of the patient.

    Because the RG method designates patients as the directors of their RG, they are encouraged to take ownership in shaping the support that meets their needs and aspirations. The primary aim of the method is to facilitate patients’ empowerment (ie, processes in which someone rediscovers their identity and takes their life in their own hands).7 Empowerment is identified as a key aspect of recovery-oriented mental health care in itself,8-10 but it is also recognized as a mediator toward improved long-term health.11 That is, empowered patients are thought to improve their health behaviors in terms of their self-esteem, social and community functioning, and abilities to manage their illness.11-15 In addition, a lack of empowerment is related to increased depression and hopelessness16-19 and impaired quality of life.16,20 The importance of empowerment in disease prevention and health promotion is recognized in various international policy guidelines.21-24

    The origins of the RG method lie in the optimal treatment model, which integrates biomedical, psychological, and social strategies in the management of SMI.25,26 In Sweden, the optimal treatment model was further developed to RG Assertive Community Treatment (RACT).27,28 A meta-analysis showed outcomes in favor of RACT for patients with psychosis in social functioning, well-being, and symptoms.28 However, RACT consists of various differences from care as usual, and the use of RGs was only one of these. The present study therefore investigated whether integrating RGs with community care has favorable effects on empowerment as well as quality of life, recovery, social and societal functioning, and symptoms compared with community care as usual.

    Participants and Design

    This assessor-blinded, 2-arm, pragmatic randomized clinical trial was conducted from September 1, 2017, to September 30, 2020, within the context of flexible assertive community treatment (FACT),29-31 the community-based care of choice for people with SMI in the Netherlands. The study was prespecified in the trial protocol (Supplement 1),32 which was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee at VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam. No important changes were made after trial approval, and no data were analyzed before study completion and database lock. Participants provided written informed consent after receiving a complete description of the study. The study followed the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) reporting guideline.33

    Participants were recruited from 20 FACT teams at 9 mental health care centers throughout the Netherlands. Eligibility screening and enrollment were conducted by FACT professionals during the intake phase for new patients. The 6 inclusion criteria consisted of age 18 years or older, an SMI according to the Dutch definition,34 estimated FACT team future involvement for at least 12 months of care but not more than 2 years in the past, capacity to provide written informed consent, and sufficient Dutch language skills.

    Randomization was performed after baseline assessment. Follow-up assessments were conducted after 9 and 18 months. Assessments took place at a participant’s home or at the treatment site and took 90 to 120 minutes to complete. Owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, 50 of 416 interviews (12.0%) took place by telephone.

    Randomization and Blinding

    Patients were randomized to FACT plus RG or FACT as usual (1:1) via an interactive web-response system based on a random allocation sequence generated by a statistician who was not involved in the trial. The system sent an email with the randomization to the involved mental health professionals, who notified the participants. Randomization was stratified by the FACT team. To conceal allocation sequence, random permuted blocks with sizes 2 and 4 were used.

    Participants and mental health professionals were not blinded to allocation, whereas the research staff conducting follow-up assessments at 9 and 18 months were blinded. To assess blinding, the research staff filled in control questions about participants’ allocation status after each assessment.

    Resource Groups

    Working with RGs within FACT involved 6 phases (eTable 1 in Supplement 2) to establish an RG that would meet quarterly. The intervention protocol was adapted from the RACT program27,35 and is described in detail elsewhere.32,36 Briefly, patients drafted their RG plans, which consisted of short- and long-term recovery goals and early warning signs, with the support of a mental health professional who was trained in the RG method. The patients then asked (“nominated”) significant others and/or professionals who could contribute in working toward the goals to join the RG. The composition was flexible and could change according to patients’ goals and phase of recovery.

    Together with the mental health professional, each patient prepared for their first RG meeting by setting the agenda and deciding on a location and chairperson. Before the meeting, the professional invited the nominated members of the patient’s RG for an in-depth interview to discuss their involvement and their mutual relationships among RG members. The RG met quarterly to discuss and evaluate the patient’s recovery goals and the plan for achieving them.

    Training in the RG method for professionals involved 2 full days and 2 half days and attendance at 6 weekly telephonic supervision meetings in small groups. There were no restrictions regarding educational background.

    FACT As Usual

    FACT as usual consisted of multidisciplinary treatment and care. According to patients’ needs and goals, this included case management, peer support, and psychiatric medication monitoring.29 Support and involvement of significant others could be part of treatment but not in the structured approach used in the RG method. Twenty of 22 participating FACT teams (90.9%) were certified to ensure similar and guaranteed quality of care.

    Model Fidelity

    Adherence and model fidelity were assessed with the RG model evaluation tool (eTable 2 in Supplement 2), which was developed in parallel with the study. The RG model evaluation tool consisted of 25 questions that were completed by the professional after each RG meeting from which a model fidelity score per RG was obtained.


    The primary outcome was self-reported empowerment, which was measured using the Netherlands Empowerment List (40 items)7 (eTable 6 in Supplement 2). The Netherlands Empowerment List contains 6 subscales: confidence and purpose, self-management, connectedness, social support, professional help, and caring community. Internal consistency (Cronbach α = 0.94), aspects of validity, reproducibility (Cronbach α = 0.79), and responsiveness were good.7,37 The questionnaire has been used as an outcome measure in several randomized clinical trials.38-42 Secondary self-report outcomes were quality of life (Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life43), psychopathological symptoms (Brief Symptom Inventory-1844), difficulties in adult attachment (Revised Adult Attachment Scale45), frequency of social contact (5 Likert scales [range, 1-7]), quality of social contact (5 self-reported Likert scales [range, 1-5]), employment (binary variable: a volunteer or paid job [1] or no job [0]), and satisfaction with treatment (Client Satisfaction Questionnaire46) and with involvement of relatives in treatment (subscale of Verona Service Satisfaction Scale–European Version47).

    Interview outcomes were personal recovery (Individual Recovery Outcomes Counter48) and disability (World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule-3249). Assessor-based outcomes were global functioning (Global Assessment of Functioning50) and social functioning (Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale51) as scored by blinded investigators. Outcomes were assessed at 0, 9, and 18 months, except for treatment satisfaction measurements (Client Satisfaction Questionnaire and Verona Service Satisfaction Scale–European Version, assessed at 9- and 18-month follow-up).

    Statistical Analyses

    Data were analyzed from September 1, 2020, to January 31, 2021, in R, version 3.0+ (R Program for Statistical Computing) and SPSS, version 27.0 (IBM Corporation). Assuming an effect size of Cohen d = 0.50,52 a 2-sided α = .05, and repeated measurement analysis, a minimum sample size of 133 was required to detect significant differences between groups with a power (β) of 80%.

    Outcomes were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat population using repeated-measures linear mixed modeling and the R package lme4 (R Program for Statistical Computing).53 Linear mixed modeling includes incomplete cases in the analysis and uses restricted maximum likelihood estimation to calculate parameter estimates. Because linear mixed modeling performs internal imputation, no other procedure of missing data was performed.54

    Although the data had a 4-level structure (repeated measures, patients, teams, and centers), adding a random intercept for center did not offer a better model fit (χ28  = 0.51 [n = 158]; P = .91) when compared with the more parsimonious 3-level structure. Hence, intercepts for patients nested in teams were included as random effects. To determine whether outcomes significantly differed between conditions over time, linear mixed models were fitted with the respective outcomes as dependent variables. The independent part consisted of the fixed effect log time and the interaction effect between condition and log time. Treatment effectiveness was determined by comparing the mean slope in the 2 conditions, reflected by and reported as Cohen d.55 Completers were defined as participants who had attended at least 2 RG meetings, 2 being the median. In addition, we explored whether differences in improvements of secondary outcomes seen between groups are accounted for by an early change in empowerment. To this end, mediation analyses were performed (R package mediation [R Program for Statistical Computing]) with change between times 0 and 1 in empowerment as the mediating variable, treatment as the independent variable, and slope of the respective secondary outcome between times 0 and 2 as the dependent variable.


    A total of 403 people with SMI were screened for eligibility, and 158 participants were randomized to FACT plus RG (n = 80) or FACT as usual (n = 78) (Figure). The baseline group characteristics were similar (Table 1). Participants’ median age was 38 (median absolute deviation [MAD], 13) years; 93 (58.9%) were men and 65 (41.1%) were women. Primary clinical classifications varied, with a similar proportion of comorbidity in the intervention and control conditions (48 of 80 [60.0%] vs 42 of 78 [53.8%], respectively). During 28 of 258 assessments (10.9%), research staff were not blinded to allocation.

    Follow-up data were available by September 30, 2020. Fifty-nine participants (73.8%) allocated to FACT plus RG had at least 1 RG meeting, and 44 (55.0%) had at least 2 RG meetings. Reasons for not starting up an RG were lack of motivation for the patient (n = 6), lack of time or motivation for the mental health professional (n = 3), repeated crisis (n = 8), or referral to other care (n = 4). Model-fidelity scores indicated a sufficient dose of the RG method (mean [SD], 3.99 [0.46]; median, 4.00 [range, 2.71-4.71]) (eTable 3 in Supplement 2). For the 21 participants (26.3%) without an RG meeting, model fidelity was scored as 0.

    Primary and Secondary Outcomes

    The primary analysis showed a greater increase in empowerment over time in the FACT plus RG condition than in the FACT as usual condition; this is reflected in a significant treatment-by-time interaction effect (estimate 0.40555 [SD, 0.07543]; P < .001) with a moderate effect size (Cohen d = 0.54; 95% CI, 0.21-0.86), indicating significantly different slopes between treatment groups (Table 2, Table 3, and eFigures 1 and 2 in Supplement 2).

    Exploratory secondary outcomes analyses showed that FACT plus RG was superior to FACT as usual for personal recovery (Individual Recovery Outcomes Counter; Cohen d, 0.38 [95% CI, 0.06-0.69]), quality of life (Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life; Cohen d, 0.25 [95% CI, −0.07 to 0.56]), disability (World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0; Cohen d, 0.29 [95% CI, −0.03 to 0.60]), quality of social contact (Cohen d, 0.24 [95% CI, −0.07 to 0.56]), general functioning (Global Assessment of Functioning Scale; Cohen d, 0.30 [95% CI, −0.01 to 0.62]), and social and occupational functioning (Social and Occupational Functioning Scale; Cohen d, 0.28 [95% CI, −0.04 to 0.59]), as reflected by differences in slopes between conditions with a small to moderate Cohen d (Tables 2 and 3). With regard to psychopathological symptoms (Brief Symptom Inventory), attachment (Revised Adult Attachment Scale), frequency of social contacts, and employment, there were no differences (Cohen d, <0.20) in slopes between the conditions.

    Subgroup Analyses

    Exploratory subgroup analyses, in which completers in the FACT plus RG condition (n = 59) were compared with participants in the FACT as usual condition (n = 78), yielded similar or slightly larger effect sizes (eTable 4 in Supplement 2). The effect size for the primary outcome analysis increased from 0.54 to 0.61 (95% CI, 0.28-0.93).

    Mediation Analyses and Treatment Satisfaction

    Results from the mediation analyses, as shown in eTable 5 in Supplement 2, revealed that improved empowerment after 9 months was a significant mediator for changes in personal recovery (proportion-mediated standardized mean difference, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.03-0.70; P = .04) and general functioning (proportion-mediated standardized mean difference, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.01-0.36; P = .04) after 18 months. Compared with the FACT as usual condition, participants in the FACT plus RG condition were more satisfied with their treatment at 9 (Cohen d, 0.45; t135 = −2.62; P = .009) and 18 (Cohen d, 0.41; t116 = −2.22; P = .02) months as well as the involvement of their relatives at 9 (Cohen d, 0.48; t132 = −3.96; P < .001) and 18 (Cohen d, 0.59; t115 = −4.40; P < .001) months (Table 4).


    To our knowledge, this randomized clinical trial is the first to examine the effectiveness of RGs for patients with SMI as a way to facilitate empowerment and enhance involvement of significant others. Our results show that empowerment improved significantly when RGs were integrated into FACT compared with FACT as usual. The medium effect size we found is large compared with effect sizes found in other social interventions for people with SMI.56-58 In addition, FACT plus RG improved quality of life, personal recovery, disability, quality of social contact, and general and social functioning more than FACT as usual. No differences between conditions were found regarding psychopathological symptoms, attachment, frequency of social contact, or employment. At 9 and 18 months, treatment satisfaction was higher in the FACT plus RG group than in the FACT as usual group. Our findings are consistent with those of previous uncontrolled studies of the RG method,25,28,52 supporting the use of RGs to improve community-based mental health care for people with SMI.

    The strongest effects of the RGs were observed for empowerment, as we expected. A possible explanation for this is offered by the qualitative study on working mechanisms by Tjaden et al,59 which showed that when patients were encouraged to be directors of their RG and to think about important aspects of their care—such as whom to involve and which recovery goals to discuss—their ownership concerning illness and recovery was vitalized. This finding reflects the content of the Netherlands Empowerment List and indicates that the RG method made patients feel more confident about their capabilities, such as having meaningful relationships and facing the challenges of their disease.

    In addition, within the RG method, significant others were structurally involved, constituting an important difference from the control condition. This may have further strengthened the patients’ belief in their own capabilities. Previous studies20,60,61 have shown the importance of family and a social network to the process of empowerment because they facilitate self-esteem and a self-concept of being capable and valuable. The RG method thereby fits within a relational, contextual perspective that underscores the pivotal role of the social context in coping with illness and recovery. Previous studies62,63 have recognized that people with SMI often see themselves as inferior and shamed in their relationships with professionals and people from their social networks. Recovering from such imbalance via the openness and joint decision-making processes inherent to the RG meetings may contribute to the empowering effects of the method.64

    Our findings are in line with those of studies showing that interventions directed toward involving family and social networks are among the most effective for people with SMI.2,6 Nevertheless, poor implementation rates for social network involvement are consistently reported.3-6 In this light, most participants with SMI allocated to the intervention condition being able to set up an RG for a longer period of time is noteworthy and suggests that the RG method is a feasible means of providing network-oriented mental health care. However, implementing the method was still challenging, as reflected by the 21 participants who did not have an RG meeting. These implementation difficulties have been described previously59,64 and show the importance of investigating barriers and facilitating factors.

    The RG method could also be useful for improving collaboration between services. Rather than referring patients to professionals such as employment or housing specialists, continuity in the different phases of illness and recovery can be fostered by inviting these specialists to join the RG meetings.

    Overall, our exploratory secondary analyses provide further evidence of the effectiveness of the RG method, although the effect sizes were smaller than those for empowerment. In addition, the mediation analyses showed that a portion of the improvement in several secondary outcomes seen between the 2 groups was accounted for by the change in empowerment. These findings support the notion that empowerment is not a traditional outcome but can be seen as a mediator that functions as an effective strategy for changing an individual’s health behaviors, eventually leading to improved mental health outcomes.10,11,20 Empowerment and other clinical outcomes may thus have reciprocally reinforcing influences, and effects might stretch beyond our follow-up times. However, we did not power on the mediation analyses, thus they should be considered exploratory. Future studies with longer follow-up are needed to further investigate how the RG method, empowerment, and other outcomes are related.

    We did not detect a significant difference in psychopathological symptoms between conditions. Clinical recovery may be addressed sufficiently within FACT. Medical and psychiatric care are indeed well implemented in FACT, but there are difficulties with services oriented toward recovery and rehabilitation.65 Indeed, in FACT as usual, mean empowerment scores did not show change at 18 months. Hence, it seems that the main added value of working with RGs within FACT concerns the functional and personal components of recovery that relate to reengagement in social interactions and a sense of personal agency.

    Strengths and Limitations

    A key strength of this study is our comparison of the RG method with an active control intervention with effectiveness that has repeatedly been demonstrated in uncontrolled studies.66-69 Furthermore, the trial was adequately powered and used blinded assessors, and the multisite nature adds to the generalizability of findings.

    Our results should also be interpreted in light of some limitations. First, professionals could have been biased during eligibility screening to approach patients who already had a well-functioning social network and/or ability to be an RG director. However, Dutch studies investigating the population with SMI in community-based services report comparable Global Assessment of Functioning Scale scores70 and similar demographic and employment characteristics.71 Although a comparison with social indicators was not available, this indicates that our study is based on a representative sample. A second limitation is that our model fidelity scale was not validated but designed parallel to the present study. In future research on the validity of the scale, a dose-response association can be deduced to increase our understanding of the effective elements of the method. Third, the experimental condition was performed in the same teams as the control condition. Despite the significant differences between conditions, participants in the control condition may have been exposed to elements of the RG method (ie, spillover). Last, we did not collect any data on potential harms, our power calculation was not based on the secondary outcomes, and 10.9% of the assessors were not blinded during data collection. In addition, participants were not blinded, which may have affected their response on the self-report measurements.


    In this randomized clinical trial, integrating RGs within and into FACT improved empowerment and other mental health outcomes for people with SMI. Replication of the results in various local and international contexts and health economic data are recommended.

    Back to top
    Article Information

    Accepted for Publication: August 17, 2021.

    Published Online: October 13, 2021. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2021.2880

    Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2021 Tjaden C et al. JAMA Psychiatry.

    Corresponding Author: Cathelijn Tjaden, MSc, Department of Reintegration and Community Care, Trimbos Institute (Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction), PO Box 750, 3500 AS Utrecht, the Netherlands (ctjaden@trimbos.nl).

    Author Contributions: Ms Tjaden and Dr den Hollander had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

    Concept and design: Tjaden, Mulder, Castelein, Delespaul, Keet, Kroon.

    Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Tjaden, Mulder, den Hollander, Castelein, van Weeghel, Kroon.

    Drafting of the manuscript: Tjaden, Mulder, den Hollander, Delespaul, Keet, Kroon.

    Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Mulder, den Hollander, Castelein, Delespaul, Keet, van Weeghel, Kroon.

    Statistical analysis: Tjaden, Mulder, den Hollander, Delespaul, Kroon.

    Obtained funding: Mulder, Castelein, Kroon.

    Administrative, technical, or material support: Mulder, Keet, Kroon.

    Supervision: Mulder, den Hollander, Delespaul, Kroon.

    Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

    Funding/Support: This trial was supported by unrestricted grant 431 from the Dutch foundation Stichting tot Steun VCVGZ and by additional funding from the following collaborating mental health centers: Altrecht, Antes, Arkin, Bavo, GGZ Centraal, GGZ Breburg, Lentis, GGZ inGeest, and GGZ NHN.

    Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The sponsors had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

    Disclaimer: The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Stichting tot Steun VCVGZ or the participating mental health centers.

    Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 3.

    Additional Contributions: We thank all the patients who agreed to participate in the study; the mental health professionals who delivered the interventions, helped to recruit participants, and implemented the protocol; and the research staff who helped to collect the data. We also thank the trainers, the authors of the Dutch handbook, and the board of the Dutch Foundation for Resource Groups for their contribution in developing the Dutch protocol. Finally, we are grateful for the support, knowledge, and expertise of our Swedish colleagues.

    Drake  RE, Green  AI, Mueser  KT, Goldman  HH.  The history of community mental health treatment and rehabilitation for persons with severe mental illness.   Community Ment Health J. 2003;39(5):427-440. doi:10.1023/A:1025860919277 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    Pharoah  F, Mari  J, Rathbone  J, Wong  W.  Family intervention for schizophrenia.   Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(12):CD000088. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000088.pub2PubMedGoogle Scholar
    Bucci  S, Berry  K, Barrowclough  C, Haddock  G.  Family interventions in psychosis: a review of the evidence and barriers to implementation.   Australian Psychologist. 2016;51(1):62-68. doi:10.1111/ap.12172 Google ScholarCrossref
    Eassom  E, Giacco  D, Dirik  A, Priebe  S.  Implementing family involvement in the treatment of patients with psychosis: a systematic review of facilitating and hindering factors.   BMJ Open. 2014;4(10):e006108. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006108 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    Ince  P, Haddock  G, Tai  S.  A systematic review of the implementation of recommended psychological interventions for schizophrenia: rates, barriers, and improvement strategies.   Psychol Psychother. 2016;89(3):324-350. doi:10.1111/papt.12084 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    Maj  M, van Os  J, De Hert  M,  et al.  The clinical characterization of the patient with primary psychosis aimed at personalization of management.   World Psychiatry. 2021;20(1):4-33. doi:10.1002/wps.20809 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    Boevink  W, Kroon  H, Delespaul  P, Os  J van.  Empowerment according to persons with severe mental illness: development of the Netherlands Empowerment List and its psychometric properties.   Open J Psychiatry. 2017;07(1):18-30. doi:10.4236/ojpsych.2017.71002 Google ScholarCrossref
    Davidson  L, O’Connell  MJ, Tondora  J, Lawless  M, Evans  AC.  Recovery in serious mental illness: a new wine or just a new bottle?   Professional Psychol Res Pract. 2005;36(5):480-487. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.36.5.480 Google ScholarCrossref
    Leamy  M, Bird  V, Le Boutillier  C, Williams  J, Slade  M.  Conceptual framework for personal recovery in mental health: systematic review and narrative synthesis.   Br J Psychiatry. 2011;199(6):445-452. doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.110.083733 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    Sakellari  E.  Empowering mentally ill people: a new health promotion challenge?   Int J Caring Sci. 2008;1(1):21-25. Accessed September 5, 2021. http://internationaljournalofcaringsciences.org/docs/Vol1_Issue1_03_Sakellari.pdfGoogle Scholar
    Wallerstein  D.  What Is the Evidence on the Effectiveness of Empowerment to Improve Health? WHO Regional Office for Europe; 2006.
    Halvorsen  K, Dihle  A, Hansen  C,  et al.  Empowerment in healthcare: a thematic synthesis and critical discussion of concept analyses of empowerment.   Patient Educ Couns. 2020;103(7):1263-1271. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2020.02.017 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    Linhorst  DM, Eckert  A.  Conditions for empowering people with severe mental illness.   Soc Service Rev. 2003;77(2):279-304. doi:10.1086/373909 Google ScholarCrossref
    Aujoulat  I, d’Hoore  W, Deccache  A.  Patient empowerment in theory and practice: polysemy or cacophony?   Patient Educ Couns. 2007;66(1):13-20. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2006.09.008 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    Agner  J, Braun  KL.  Patient empowerment: a critique of individualism and systematic review of patient perspectives.   Patient Educ Couns. 2018;101(12):2054-2064. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2018.07.026 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    Vauth  R, Kleim  B, Wirtz  M, Corrigan  PW.  Self-efficacy and empowerment as outcomes of self-stigmatizing and coping in schizophrenia.   Psychiatry Res. 2007;150(1):71-80. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2006.07.005 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    Johanson  S, Bejerholm  U.  The role of empowerment and quality of life in depression severity among unemployed people with affective disorders receiving mental healthcare.   Disabil Rehabil. 2017;39(18):1807-1813. doi:10.1080/09638288.2016.1211758 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    Seeman  M, Seeman  TE.  Health behavior and personal autonomy: a longitudinal study of the sense of control in illness.   J Health Soc Behav. 1983;24(2):144-160. doi:10.2307/2136641 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    Fitzsimons  S, Fuller  R.  Empowerment and its implications for clinical practice in mental health: a review.   J Ment Health. 2002;11(5):481-499. doi:10.1080/09638230020023 Google ScholarCrossref
    Sibitz  I, Amering  M, Unger  A,  et al.  The impact of the social network, stigma and empowerment on the quality of life in patients with schizophrenia.   Eur Psychiatry. 2011;26(1):28-33. doi:10.1016/j.eurpsy.2010.08.010 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    WHO European Ministerial Conference on Mental Health. Mental Health Declaration for Europe: facing the challenges, building solutions. January 14, 2005. Accessed September 5, 2021. https://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/88595/E85445.pdf
    European Pact for Mental Health and Well-being. EU High-Level Conference; Brussels; June 12-13, 2008. Accessed September 5, 2021. https://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_determinants/life_style/mental/docs/pact_en.pdf
    WHO Regional Office for Europe. Declaration of Alma-Ata. 1978. Accessed September 5, 2021. https://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/113877/E93944.pdf
    World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe. The European Mental Health Action Plan 2013-2020. 2015;19. Accessed September 5, 2021. http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/280604/WHO-Europe-Mental-Health-Acion-Plan-2013-2020.pdf
    Falloon  IRH, Montero  I, Sungur  M,  et al; OTP Collaborative Group.  Implementation of evidence-based treatment for schizophrenic disorders: two-year outcome of an international field trial of optimal treatment.   World Psychiatry. 2004;3(2):104-109.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    Falloon  IR, Held  T, Roncone  R, Coverdale  JH, Laidlaw  TM.  Optimal treatment strategies to enhance recovery from schizophrenia.   Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 1998;32(1):43-49. doi:10.3109/00048679809062704 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    Malm  U, Lundin  L, Rydell  P, Nordén  T, Norlander  T.  Resource group ACT (RACT): a review of an integrative approach to psychoeducation of individual families involving the patient.   Int J Ment Health. 2015;44(4):269-276. doi:10.1080/00207411.2015.1076290 Google ScholarCrossref
    Nordén  T, Malm  U, Norlander  T.  Resource group assertive community treatment (RACT) as a tool of empowerment for clients with severe mental illness: a meta-analysis.   Clin Pract Epidemiol Ment Health. 2012;8:144-151. doi:10.2174/1745017901208010144 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    van Veldhuizen  JR.  FACT: a Dutch version of ACT.   Community Ment Health J. 2007;43(4):421-433. doi:10.1007/s10597-007-9089-4 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    Svensson  B, Hansson  L, Lexén  A.  Outcomes of clients in need of intensive team care in flexible assertive community treatment in Sweden.   Nord J Psychiatry. 2018;72(3):226-231. doi:10.1080/08039488.2018.1430168 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    Firn  M, Alonso-Vicente  M, Hubbeling  D, Holley  J, White  SJ, Jones  B.  The replacement of assertive outreach services by reinforcing local community teams: a replication study reporting comparative outcomes and patient reported experience.   J Ment Health. 2018;27(2):157-163. doi:10.1080/09638237.2017.1340601 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    Tjaden  CD, Mulder  CL, van Weeghel  J,  et al.  The resource group method in severe mental illness: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial and a qualitative multiple case study.   Int J Ment Health Syst. 2019;13(1):15. doi:10.1186/s13033-019-0270-2 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    Schulz  KF, Altman  DG, Moher  D; CONSORT Group.  CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials.   Trials. 2010;11(1):32. doi:10.1186/1745-6215-11-32 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    Delespaul  PH; Consensus Group EPA.  Consensus regarding the definition of persons with severe mental illness and the number of such persons in the Netherlands  [in Dutch].  Tijdschr Psychiatr. 2013;55(6):427-438.Google Scholar
    Nordén  T, Eriksson  A, Kjellgren  A, Norlander  T.  Involving clients and their relatives and friends in psychiatric care: case managers’ experiences of training in resource group assertive community treatment.   Psych J. 2012;1(1):15-27. doi:10.1002/pchj.1 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    Leeman  E, Bähler  M, Bovenberg  F, Dorleijn  M, van Goor  L, Kreuger  T,  et al.  Praktijkboek Resourcegroepen: Herstellen Doe Je Samen. De Tijdstroom; 2017.
    Vogel  JS, Bruins  J, Halbersma  L,  et al.  Measuring personal recovery in people with a psychotic disorder based on CHIME: a comparison of three validated measures.   Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2020;29(5):808-819. doi:10.1111/inm.12711 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    Stiekema  APM, van Dam  MT, Bruggeman  R,  et al.  Facilitating recovery of daily functioning in people with a severe mental illness who need longer-term intensive psychiatric services: results from a cluster randomized controlled trial on cognitive adaptation training delivered by nurses.   Schizophr Bull. 2020;46(5):1259-1268. doi:10.1093/schbul/sbz135 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    Boevink  W, Kroon  H, van Vugt  M, Delespaul  P, van Os  J.  A user-developed, user run recovery programme for people with severe mental illness: a randomised control trial.   Psychosis. 2016;8(4):287-300. doi:10.1080/17522439.2016.1172335 Google ScholarCrossref
    Zoun  MHH, Koekkoek  B, Sinnema  H,  et al.  Effectiveness of a self-management training for patients with chronic and treatment resistant anxiety or depressive disorders on quality of life, symptoms, and empowerment: results of a randomized controlled trial.   BMC Psychiatry. 2019;19(1):46. doi:10.1186/s12888-019-2013-y PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    Simons  CJP, Hartmann  JA, Kramer  I,  et al.  Effects of momentary self-monitoring on empowerment in a randomized controlled trial in patients with depression.   Eur Psychiatry. 2015;30(8):900-906. doi:10.1016/j.eurpsy.2015.09.004 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    van Gestel-Timmermans  H, Brouwers  EP, van Assen  MA, van Nieuwenhuizen  C.  Effects of a peer-run course on recovery from serious mental illness: a randomized controlled trial.   Psychiatr Serv. 2012;63(1):54-60. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.201000450 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    Priebe  S, Huxley  P, Knight  S, Evans  S.  Application and results of the Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life (MANSA).   Int J Soc Psychiatry. 1999;45(1):7-12. doi:10.1177/002076409904500102 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    Derogatis  LR, Fitzpatrick M. The SCL-90-R, the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI), and the BSI-18. In: Maruish ME, ed.  The Use of Psychological Testing for Treatment Planning and Outcomes Assessment: Instruments for Adults. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge; 2004:1–41.
    Collins  NL.  Working models of attachment: implications for explanation, emotion and behavior.   J Pers Soc Psychol. 1996;71(4):810-832. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.4.810 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    Attkisson  CC, Grrenfield  TK. The Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ) scales and the Service Satisfaction Scale-30 (SSS-30). In: Sederer  LL, Dickey  B, eds.  Outcome Assessment in Clinical Practice. Williams & Wilkins; 1996:120-127.
    Ruggeri  M, Lasalvia  A, Dall’Agnola  R,  et al.  Development, internal consistency and reliability of the Verona Service Satisfaction Scale–European version: EPSILON study 7.   Br J Psychiatry Suppl. 2000;177(39):s41-s48. doi:10.1192/bjp.177.39.s41 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    Monger  B, Hardie  SM, Ion  R, Cumming  J, Henderson  N.  The Individual Recovery Outcomes Counter: preliminary validation of a personal recovery measure.   Psychiatrist. 2013;37(7):221-227. doi:10.1192/pb.bp.112.041889 Google ScholarCrossref
    Garin  O, Ayuso-Mateos  JL, Almansa  J,  et al; MHADIE consortium.  Validation of the “World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule, WHODAS-2” in patients with chronic diseases.   Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;8(8):51. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-8-51 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    Gaite  L, Vázquez-Barquero  JL, Herrán  A,  et al; EPSILON Group.  Main determinants of Global Assessment of Functioning score in schizophrenia: a European multicenter study.   Compr Psychiatry. 2005;46(6):440-446. doi:10.1016/j.comppsych.2005.03.006 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    Hilsenroth  MJ, Ackerman  SJ, Blagys  MD,  et al.  Reliability and validity of DSM-IV axis V.   Am J Psychiatry. 2000;157(11):1858-1863. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.157.11.1858 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    Malm  UI, Ivarsson  BÅ, Allebeck  P.  Durability of the efficacy of integrated care in schizophrenia: a five-year randomized controlled study.   Psychiatr Serv. 2014;65(8):1054-1057. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.201300164 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    Bates  D, Mächler  M, Bolker  BM, Walker  SC.  Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4.   J Stat Software. 2015;67(1). doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01 Google Scholar
    Twisk  J, de Boer  M, de Vente  W, Heymans  M.  Multiple imputation of missing values was not necessary before performing a longitudinal mixed-model analysis.   J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(9):1022-1028. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.03.017 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    Cohen  J.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Routledge Academic; 1988.
    Webber  M, Fendt-Newlin  M.  A review of social participation interventions for people with mental health problems.   Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2017;52(4):369-380. doi:10.1007/s00127-017-1372-2 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    Anderson  K, Laxhman  N, Priebe  S.  Can mental health interventions change social networks? a systematic review.   BMC Psychiatry. 2015;15(1):297. doi:10.1186/s12888-015-0684-6 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    Freeman  AM, Tribe  RH, Stott  JCH, Pilling  S.  Open dialogue: a review of the evidence.   Psychiatr Serv. 2019;70(1):46-59. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.201800236 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    Tjaden  CD, Boumans  J, Mulder  CL, Kroon  H.  Embracing the social nature of recovery: a qualitative study on the resource group method for people with severe mental illness.   Front Psychiatry. 2020;11:574256. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2020.574256 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    Bengtsson-Tops  A.  Mastery in patients with schizophrenia living in the community: relationship to sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, needs for care and support, and social network.   J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2004;11(3):298-304. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2850.2003.00718.x PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    Corrigan  PW, Watson  AC.  Understanding the impact of stigma on people with mental illness.   World Psychiatry. 2002;1(1):16-20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    Grealish  A, Tai  S, Hunter  A, Morrison  AP.  Qualitative exploration of empowerment from the perspective of young people with psychosis.   Clin Psychol Psychother. 2013;20(2):136-148. doi:10.1002/cpp.785 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    Birchwood  M, Meaden  A, Trower  P, Gilbert  P, Plaistow  J.  The power and omnipotence of voices: subordination and entrapment by voices and significant others.   Psychol Med. 2000;30(2):337-344. doi:10.1017/S0033291799001828 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    Tjaden  CD, Boumans  J, Mulder  CL, Kroon  H.  Interpersonal relations within the context of resource groups for people with severe mental illness: a narrative approach.   Front Psychiatry. 2021;12:632437. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2021.632437 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    van Vugt  MD, Mulder  CL, Bähler  M, Delespaul  PH, Westen  K, Kroon  H.  Model fidelity of flexible assertive community treatment (F-ACT) teams: five years of audit results [in Dutch].   Tijdschr Psychiatr. 2018;60(7):441-448.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    Nielsen  CM, Hjorthøj  C, Killaspy  H, Nordentoft  M.  The effect of flexible assertive community treatment in Denmark: a quasi-experimental controlled study.   Lancet Psychiatry. 2021;8(1):27-35. doi:10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30424-7 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    Drukker  M, Visser  E, Sytema  S, van Os  J.  Flexible assertive community treatment, severity of symptoms and psychiatric health service use, a real life observational study.   Clin Pract Epidemiol Ment Health. 2013;9(1):202-209. doi:10.2174/1745017901309010202 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    Sood  L, Owen  A, Onyon  R,  et al.  Flexible assertive community treatment (FACT) model in specialist psychosis teams: an evaluation.   BJPsych Bull. 2017;41(4):192-196. doi:10.1192/pb.bp.116.053967 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    Firn  M, White  SJ, Hubbeling  D, Jones  B.  The replacement of assertive outreach services by reinforcing local community teams: a four-year observational study.   J Ment Health. 2018;27(1):4-9. doi:10.3109/09638237.2016.1139073 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    Drukker  M, van Os  J, Bak  M, à Campo  J, Delespaul  P.  Systematic monitoring of needs for care and global outcomes in patients with severe mental illness.   BMC Psychiatry. 2010;10:36. doi:10.1186/1471-244X-10-36PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    Kortrijk  H, Schaefer  B, van Weeghel  J, Mulder  CL, Kamperman  A.  Trajectories of patients with severe mental illness in two-year contact with flexible assertive community treatment teams using routine outcome monitoring data: an observational study.   PLoS One. 2019;14(1):e0207680. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0207680 PubMedGoogle Scholar